Early timed chambers creek hatchery steelhead have been shown to have an insignificant impact on wild steelhead. The idea that the hatcheries imbede wild fish recovery is a bunch of bunk. Examples of how hatcheries impact a fishery is clearly, and openly displayed with the great lakes program (One of many realistic positive points to support hatcheries from), whereas the "science" that the WFC, and the wild fish zealots preach is largely unsubstantiated, biased, unclear, and more often than not shows evidence of those particular baised positions in their illogical arguments to show cause and effect. In regards to the above article wherein it is presented that hatchery fish interbreed with wild fish, supposedly lowering the populations overall fitness: The chambers creek stock fish are typically not in river systems at similar spawning times as wild fish in the overwhelming majority of systems. Thereby, the interface is minimal more often than not. Because interface is minimal, the interbreeding has been shown to be minimal as well, with cutoffs ranging in the 2nd percentile as the typical high end standard. The argument is based on the premise that in the event of breeding between the two occurring, the lower reproductive success rate typically associated with chambers creek stock fish is the primary genetic trait being passed on to the wild gene base. This can be refuted with biology 101 level knowledge of ecosystems in that with the gene transfer in the meiosis-mitosis transition genetic traits are shown to be selected at random. That is to say, the premisce the WFC, and the zealots are debating on is that out of the millions of possible genetic traits being potentially passed down in the unlikely and rare occurance of breeding between chambers creek stock fish, and wild fish is that of lower reproductive success. It takes no mathametician to debate the odds of this selection being the predominant trait in an already unlikely scenario. Further still: In the hypothetical scenario wherein chambers creek stock fish did impact the genetic base of a wild steelhead population, again even in biology 101, one quickly learns that genetic diversity and variance is almost without exception always a positive thing within that population. Therein if the genes of the hatchery fish are being passed onto wild fish populations in said hypothetical scenario, given the previously mentioned odds by which lower productive success would be the predominate trait being passed on, more than likely the interaction would result in a wider range of genetic information being selected from thus improving the overall fitness of that population over time. Habitat, and environmental pressures including those which are man-made, and predation are the main culprits for wild steelhead populations today. This is why the unsubstantiated "science" the wild fish zealots preach is scoffed at by the overall scientific community, and the user base as a whole. Anadromous steelhead are not residential Montana rainbow trout, and the state of Washington, the conservationists, the sportsmen, and the economy as a whole all value the presence of hatchery steelhead. All of this, yet some fringe groups would perform any dastardly, underhanded trick in the book to put an end to something good. When their "science" is deemed to be inaccurate, or biased, and their crying goes unheaded, they bring out the legal team, and sue to get their way. Quite a shameful thing, and I for one wouldn't want to be even associated with that side of the issue on that alone.